Talk:Judgment as a matter of law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Directed verdict[edit]

The 1991 amendment to the FRCP changed the term directed verdict in the United States to JMOL, Judgment as a matter of law. It should be merged with a section under Directed Verdict specifying that while the exact same procedures exist, in the Federal System the proper term is JMOL. It is rather silly to have JMOL in a separate page when it clearly belongs under Directed Verdict in the US section. JuBangas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the other page is a stub, I think the merge should not take place or be the other way around. The reason for this is largely one of US =! World (check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, a rather bad habit which I think many of the legal topics have been slipping into recently). I will remove the tag since there is no supporting argument on the talk page or edit summary. I might support a move to merge the other way around, but I don't feel strongly enough about that. -- 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Directed Verdict

Generally in civil procedure the two are one in the same (at least in the US, in civil cases). After having to ask professors if there is any difference between the two and hearing there isn't, Wiki should merge these two. It would make more sense to merge Directed Verdict into JMOL, as JMOL is the phrase currently in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

JNOV/JMOL and DV occur at different points, which affects the options after appeal.--Tznkai (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I also vote no, or at least do it the other way around. THey are different things. The most that could be said is that directed verdict is a kind of jud. as a matter of law. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

JMOL is a broader category that encapsulates the older terms of directed verdict (where a judge "directs" the verdict before the jury renders its verdict) and JNOV/judgment non obstante veredicto/judgment notwithstanding the verdict (where a judge disagrees with the jury's verdict and replaces that verdict with his own verdict). The older terms continue to be used in some circles possibly because they are more specific as to where the judgment occurred within the trial. Judgment notwithstanding verdict, Directed verdict, [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgstmary (talkcontribs) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)